View report page

15, Woods Place
16, Wolseley Street
20, Wolseley Street
4, Woods Place
16 „
17 „
1, Woolf Street
18 „
11 „
14 „
2 „
19 „
Section 48, Public Health (London) Act, 1891.
Certificates under the above section were granted for the following houses : —
23 Parish Street.
256, Southwark Park Road.
Disinfection.
The following table shows the number of articles passed through the steam disinfector during
the year under report:—
Beds
802
Quilts
738
Sheets
904
Blankets
1,037
Bolsters
556
Books
134
Miscellaneous
3,224
Carpets
17
Verminous Clothing
12,798
Cushions
317
Mattresses
502
Total
22,712
Overlays
266
Pillows
1,417
8,436 new tabs were used to replace those taken off mattresses, palliases, and cushions before
disinfection.
Cleansing of Persons Act, 1897.
During the year under report 44 male adults, 3 female adults, 881 male and 1,039 female
children used the Verminous Baths and had their clothing disinfected. The total number of articles
disinfected for this purpose was 12,798.
Smoke Nuisances.
47 chimneys were kept under observation and 16 notices served.
House Refuse.
The following table shows the amount of house and trade refuse disposed of during the year
ended December, 1912 : —
TRADE REFUSE.
HOUSE REFUSE.
10,969 loads.
18,639
19
1
74 loads.
39
9
0
Bermondsey Destructor
2,623 h „
4,459
19
0
Barged away
863 „
1,467
2
0
2,697½ „
4,499
8
0
Total
11,832
20,107
1
1
Dust Destructor.
On account of complaints received the following report was submitted to the Public Health
Committee, (a) As a result several improvements were effected in the working of the destructor and
the height of the chimneys considerably increased, since which there have been very few complaints
from the school, though the inhabitants of the surrounding houses do not think there has been
much, if any improvement.
"An examination of the complaints from the Neckinger school enumerated in the letter of the
London County Council, dated 27th June, 1912, and in the correspondence referred to in it, shows
that they have their origin in three distinct sources, and as such I shall consider them separately.
These are (1) the dust destructor, (2) the electric fight undertaking, and (3) Ellis' tannery.
In my opinion there is ample justification for these complaints, but before coming to the question
of the remedies I shall endeavour to estimate the amount and seriousness of the nuisances. Under
the Public Health (London) Act, 1891, certain matters can be dealt with as a " nuisance or injurious
or dangerous to health," and although these alleged nuisances would all come under the designation
of " nuisance," it is not so easy to bring them all under the designation of " injurious " or
" dangerous to health." An unpleasant smell may be a nuisance, but if no special form of disease
is conveyed, and the presence of a poisonous gas in sufficient quantities to be a presumptive cause
ill health cannot be ascertained, a nuisance order in a court of law would be difficult to obtain, unless
the effluvium complained of were concentrated or some evidence of actual injury to health could
be produced. If, on the other hand, evidence of the presence of an injurious gas or gases in
measurable quantities can be offered, the nuisance is much more serious and calls for immediate
steps to be taken for its abatement.
The fumes and smells from the dust destructor, ever since its inception, have caused more or less
nuisance to the occupants of the surrounding houses, and with each extension of the electric light
undertaking these have become worse. At first the chief nuisance was caused by the cooling of
the clinker in the yard, and later by the emanation of smoke and other noxious fumes from the
building itself. The first mentioned has been remedied to some extent, but the second is worse,
and the causes are not far to seek. The primary object of a dust destructor is to get rid of the
household refuse of the district as quickly and effectually as possible, and for this purpose it should
be collected from the houses at frequent intervals, in a cleanly manner, brought to the destructor
and tipped into the furnaces and completely burnt. There should be no accumulation of refuse
about the tipping platform and no escape of noxious fumes anywhere except up the tall chimney.
Owing however, to the endeavour to unite the functions of a dust destructor and a generating
station for electricity in one undertaking the result is favourable neither to the quick and hygienic
disposal of refuse, nor the economic generation of electricity.